Don't forget, it's one solution to many many problems, not just overpopulation, but stretching and thinning of resources, world hunger, devastation of the environment, spread of diseases, the list goes on and on... Thinning the herd is *good*.

Well, I don't eat children to control overpopulation or to stop world hunger and disease. I only eat children because they are simply... delicious, same reason why I eat bald eagles and giant pandas, oh and condor eggs.

I understand that the point of this is to blow out of proportion the harm that has been done to the universe of firefly by killing off major characters and blowing a storyline out of the water, and demonstrating the depths that these characters could sink to in real life situations. I think the end of the movie was to demonstrate how strong the characters were, not how they wallow in their own bleakness.

Also, if we're speaking of reality vs. fictionalized drama, can you explain whiy a sword to the gut still allows a man to continue fighting? I'm sorry, I was more shocked that after all of the injuries taken at the end of the movie, that any of them were able to do anything.

"Could be he's harboring some resentment at us for putting his man through our engine."

Ok crazy people...its a movie, and a sci fi movie at that. I think when people say, Joss keeps it real, they mean he doesn't make it squeaky clean like Star Wars where the good guys always win and live happily ever after. Everyone knows that Joss doesn't write REAL stuff, he writes fiction. Sorry to burst the bubble, but there is no hotty vampire slayer, or vampire with a soul, or talking toys, or mutants with shiny claws, or spaceships with gravity drives. What is real is the heart of the characters. You don't have to over do it with Jayne raping Kaylee cause its a story...and you can make the reality of the characters and the story anything you want.

Alright, the post is rife with spoilers, so I'll jsut give some space before starting rather than making the whole thing a spoiler tag.

See, I'm about as tired with people complaining about Joss killing characters and making a terrible mistake as you are with people saying Joss knows best (this is in part due to spending a long time arguing with a friend over Wash's death yeasterday). Yes, he does owe something to his muse, and to his audience, and that is to make the best stroy he knows how to make, not the nicest, not the happiest, not the most real, the best. If the author is not willing to actually kill characters when it is right for the story, all the suspense and danger in the world becomes pointless because it is fake. The characters have to me be mortal, have to be killable, or there is no real danger. Sure there were things I would consider mistakes in the film, but the darkness and death don't fall into that catagory. Characters exist to serve a storyline, and if their death serves the storyline best (which for me at least both of them in this movie did), then that is what has to happen to the character. In order to be a hero you must face danger, facing danger means risking death. More than anytime during the show the crew became heros in the movie, and that means some people die.

Saying that Book and Wash should not have died is like reading Fellowship of the Ring and complaining that Boromir and Gandalf die. Those events served a puprose in that book, and we don't know where things will lead in the future so it's hard to say what effect it will have.

Also, for refrence, you're worst of all possible worlds take is no more "real" than a constant happy shiny world. The world is a mix of good things and bad things, and making everything bad is just as silly as making everything good and safe.

It's frightening. People didn't get it when they aired the original Star Trek series. Took em 20 or so years but they came around. They didn't get it when Star Wars first hit the theatres. Again, they came around when it was rereleased at the theatres. Now again, amazing and intelligent fiction in our midst and people just don't get it. This thread invokes Shakespeare, Van Gogh, Cultish phenomna of recent history, and on and on.

You guys are looking for meaning where there is none, missing what everything means when there is some, and boring me to tears. Kinda scary.

It always amazes me that people will inject themselves into conversations merely to say "I'm too good for this conversation, and you people just don't get it." Newsflash for everyone concerned...Shakespeare was just a really good pulp fiction writer that wasn't acclaimed in his own day; Van Gogh was a drug-addled painter whose works are loved, reviled, or overlooked; cultish phenomena is what seems to be driving people here...I'm not even sure the posts are being read all the way through. Anyway...my overarching points are these:

1) I never doubted the ever-present peril to the characters during the series...and yet none of them died.
2) As a TV show, Firefly worked and developed a huge and (maybe too) fervent fan base
3) Serenity, logically, should have followed that formula
4) People unwilling to question the execution of this cinematic endeavor are kinda creepifyin' and have a cultish air about them (sorry if that hurts)
5) In the end, we are talking about a TV show cum movie that had (and maybe still has) a lot of potential. But it's just that...a TV show and a movie, not a religion. Feel free to expect more of Mr. Whedon.

Thanatus...the crazy people thing was meant lightly and as a joke and I am deeply and truly sorry I offended you and anyone else. Please accept my deepest regrets for any pain my posting might have caused you or your family and loved ones.

I never said it could not be discussed seriously. I said it was a movie to demonstrate that Joss never intended it to be real. Is it a movie I'm passionate about? Yes, and there are many others. But the movie reference means that it is not real. Real was your word not mine. Serenity is no less real than Saving Private Ryan. Both are movies and not real at all. SPR may feel more real but it is in fact just as fake. Unless you film the actors actually getting shot it is not real. You said I brought no academic source...what? Do I really need one to prove to you that vampires and intergalactic spaceships are fiction? Should I make references to Shakespeare and van Gogh as you did in order to substantiate my superior knowlege of the arts and therefore imply that my opinion is somehow more relevent instead of just acknowledging that Serenity is a seriocomical work of fiction never intended to be real, yet was attempted by Joss to seem as real as possible while staying within the realm and limits of the story and rating system. Nah I like my version better.

This thread really needs a spoiler warning, Thanatus. Just to be safe. I'd hate for someone to be spoiled this close to release.

Select to view spoiler:

"Why not have characters faced with real challenges and difficulties that they have to deal with and grow through?"

Well, that's just the problem here: One of the greatest challenges a person can face and overcome is the death of a loved one. By not killing anybody, you remove one of those great challenges. By trying to save every character you dilute the power of the story. When people talk about Whedon's "realism," they aren't talking about his lack of scientific knowledge, his willingness to choose emotion over continuity, his poor math skills (it took them four seasons to get the vampire's ages right over on Buffy), and his general lack of perfection in creating a fully believable alternate world. When they talk about his "realism," they're talking about the fact that he is one of the few people willing to use that last great challenge to a character: death. Most shows and films, when they kill somebody, it's a second tier character or someone we've only seen in one episode. Whedon kills long-lasting characters so that we can see the rest of the cast deal with, overcome (or not) this last great challenge. So yes, he throws challenges at the characters that they have to deal with and grow through. Death is one of those challenges. Killing an important character may seem "easy" to you, but how many series or franchises really do it (especially in the middle of the run rather than at the glorious end)?

You say it seems so pedestrian, done only for shock value. Others have repeatedly explained elsewhere that this is not so (though perhaps you have not heard them), but I'll do so here again. Book had to die to get Mal to risk crossing the Reaver territory. The Reavers had been built up to be so terrifying, that nothing but a death close to home would drive Mal to risk it. Once people he cared about were dying, he realized he couldn't hide anymore. Nothing else would have done that for him. Book was part of his crew; the Sanchez brothers and the others weren't. If they got it, he would warn the others but keep on trying to hide. Only death could drive him to do that. Then there's Wash. He had to die for two reasons. One, I suppose, you could consider shock value. Whedon has said that the problem with TV especially is that you don't really get a sense of danger, you know the characters will be coming back week after week so instead of wondering if they're going to get out of this, you wonder how they're going to get out of this. So every so often, Joss will remind people that "nothing is safe" in his shows. It would have happened if "Firefly" had lasted, in happened roughly every other season on "Buffy" and "Angel". You can't become comfortable, that creates a distance between yourself and the characters (they think they're in danger, but you know they're not). By reminding you that "nothing is safe," Joss brings your emotions and thinking back in line with that of the characters. After Wash died, I was terrified--just like the characters were. Every time someone was injured, I was sure they were/would be dead, just like the characters feared. I was right there with them. By killing some, Whedon is bringing you closer to the rest, reminding you that these people don't know there the Big Damn Heroes of the movie and thus semi-untouchable. Instead, they're just ordinary people and death helps humanize them for us. Like any literary technique, it doesn't work all the time for everyone, but in Whedon's case it works most of the time for most people.

Oh, yes, the second reason Wash died. There is a great deal of talk towards the end of the film about "war." The BDHs go to war for what they believe in, expecting that at least some of them won't make it. Because that is true in every war. If were are to believe that this really was a war, then we have to lose something. Victory must be bittersweet, as it always is. Wash died a soldier. Some say his death was pointless. It's actually foreshadowed in the film. When they're on Miranda and River is breaking down and the camera is doing that spinny thing and Jayne is talking, he says something like "Everybody's dead for no reason." And on that line, the spinny camera stops and rests on Wash. He says: "Let's get to the beacon." The first time I saw it, I thought that was very odd, giving Wash that heroic line. But now I understand it better. You see, Whedon is an existentialist and so for him all deaths are pointless. But, like Jubal Early says, we can "imbue" them with meaning. Wash's death is only meaningless if you refuse to imbue it with meaning, but Wash himself was dedicated to getting to the beacon and getting the word out. He died fighting for something he believed in, after the greatest bit of flying he's ever done. I consider that, as the Operative put it, "a good death." And now I have to go.

Shakespeare, pulp fiction writer of his day? I read nearly everything he wrote back in my college days, minus most of the sonnets and a few of his historys. That's kind of like calling John Lennon the Lawrence Welk of undergound Polka. Van Gogh? Misunderstood artist, or psychotic stalker who thinks it's sexy to lop off his left ear and mail it to his unrequited love? Etc.

It's funny. Someone could push this into a deep philosophical debate, write a screenplay around it and Hollywood would hail it as the best piece of drama since Ishtar (as long as they throw in some gratuitous violence and a nearly naked Jessica Alba).

No,no,no, Early. Firstly, my apologies...and this goes for all. This medium can at times lead to misunderstandings and vagueries. please accept my apologies. Wasn't trying to be snobbish here...simply trying to communicate. Believe me, I don't spend my free time in galleries and the such. I appreciate the low brow, and even revel in it...Hell, I've even watched a couple episodes of the new Batllestar Galactica! (Sorry that was gratuitous :) ) Let me be clear...I really like Firefly, and accept Serenity as a decent sci-fi action adventure. As far as "real" goes...that's not even my word. Read it on countless posts with comments like "people have to die for it to feel real" and "people die in real life". I think we're on the same page here...I know I'm free to say "eh..." about the movie, and you and others are free to "love" it. I just wanted to highlight the inherent logical weakness of the "Joss knows best" arguement. Gene knew best, and we got Star Trek IV...Whales in Space. I just wanted to rant a bit about this blind faith in a writer's vision. Honestly, please read HKCAVALIER here http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=13444 because I reaaly am just trying to say what he said better vis-a-vis the movie. I just wanted people to think about this blind faith issue. Again, Early and everyone...I apologize. I was out of line and just want to discuss some interesting issues related to this phenomenal property.

And Stake...well stated and well reasoned (beats the whole trust in the Master argument.) And no, I haven't read all the posts on the boards, so thanks for regurgitating for me ;). I can understand now why so many of you feel this is necessary. Having dealt with death myself, I'm much more interested in how a charcter overcomes adversity in themselves and those around them. we're gonna have to agree to disagree on the second "event".

XG...I'm not sayin' the Bard ain't wonderful and all, but I think it's fair to say he's more appreciated today than then (by his peers anyway). Van Gogh...Yeah he was a freak with a penchant for absinthe and the dramatic, but he did a pretty good job at colorin'. As far as Jessica Alba goes...what wouldn't be made better by her being seen in it? :)

Why is it, though, that so many who didn't like Serenity jump to the conclusion that those who did are mindless, Whedon-fellating zombies, incapable of forming their own opinion on what The Joss presents to them?

Cuz, well, I think that's probably the case for some, but I imagine them to be the crazy fringe few.

Why is it, though, that so many who didn't like Serenity jump to the conclusion that those who did are mindless, Whedon-fellating zombies, incapable of forming their own opinion on what The Joss presents to them?

Cuz, well, I think that's probably the case for some, but I imagine them to be the crazy fringe few.

Cheers.

无 党派 人士

HK...That's kinda what I'm getting at here. As someone who was diasappointed with the movie, I can tell you that it's a very lonely place to be. It just seems like so many of the Serenity huggers think people are out of their minds for not liking it, and those tend to be the vocal minority. Again, I liked the movie - on its own merits. It's more a feeling of disappointed that beset me more than repulsion. I am hearing reviewers referencing the rabid Browncoat fan base, and have even said that (we) are turning other genre fans away from the franchise. You know it's funny, Book was probably my favorite character, but I can accept his death. It just seems like the story and the franchise would have been so much better served by changed Wash (maybe paraplegic or something...I don't know), not a dead Wash. Does that sense of unrealised potential make any sense?

Those of you who doubt me thought Leia and Luke were gonna tongue wrassle (even Alan Dean Foster was wrong about that "Slinter of the Mind's Eye" anyone? and are forgetting the whole Buffy/Spike thing.

I LIKE Kaylee's innocence in the TV show... she couldn't even shoot back when shot at... but in teh film, when she finally finds a reason to fight... she's a wee bit gung ho. Good for Kaylee. I mean really, if they are all 'gonna be bad guys' should the WHOLE crew get some martial arts tips from River and gun handlin' lessons from Jayne and tactics from Mal and Zoe and first aid from Simon?

Nah, THAT would be too realistic. Cross training? who needs it?

I always thought (on the TV show) it was STUPID that no one else (even Mal) knew how to fly Serenity. Apparently that's been done away with now that River magically knows how to fly.

And hey WHICH crafty crew member downloaded the security video feed for Mr. Universe to see huh?

You've sourced me twice now; thought I should speak up (flattered by the way, thanks). Firstly, I'm glad to hear you've changed your tone. Folks 'round here are good people with a marked tendancy to the funny and don't go in for all that internet gladiator talk you used to bust in here (we save that sort of thing for the RWED ).

Second, you're off the beam about the Bard. Pretty successful in his day, had plays commissioned by kings and queens, thank you very much. Wasn't cold in his grave before critics started makin' hay of his genius.

Thirdly,

Select to view spoiler:

like yourself, I think Joss is wrong about having to off a body, just to get an audience to sweat. I can watch The Shining 40 times and still lose it when Shelly Duvall is trapped in the bathroom, because Shelly Duvall plays terrified-out-of-her-skull better than any actor I've ever seen. As long as what the character is going through feels real to me, I'm there, every time.

Thing is, I think Joss was right if we're talking about Buffy (or most t.v. where "acting" is just a word people put on their resumees), precisely because that show's so unreal and capricious in its storytelling. How many stagey, phoney fight scenes where Buffy kicks total ass can you take before you need some kind of stimulant? But Firefly didn't need anything.

The thing that amazes me about that whole Wash's-dying-meant-nobody-was-safe argument is that Joss had already killed Book at the time! Hello? Joss killed Book! Why didn't that put the fear in any of these would be Missourians?

If a movie's really good, if I'm involved in the lives of its characters, I'm not even thinking about the director and what he's capable of till it's over. You know what though, I wasn't all that engaged by that time in the BDM, so part of me was thinking about Joss and his intentions. I saw him kill Wash and my first thought was, "Well, either he's killing everyone (which he ain't, 'cause of the sequel thing) or he's done killing off main characters for one movie!"

This kind of ham-handed manipulation of the audience doesn't work unless your audience all think exactly the same way you do. And when you think your audience all think exactly the same way you do, you've lost your audience--except for the hardcore fans who...yeah.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

Once again, HK...you humble me with your communicative abilities. Maybe I should just shut up, look but don't type, and trust that more erudite folks as yourself have the ear of Joss. WRT Bill, fair enough, HK...I was thinking more Titus Andronicus than Taming of the Shrew. The early stuff was a bit pilloried if I remember correctly, maybe I'm out there though Lit 101 was awile ago. I was mostly referring to him being outside the University set of his contemporaries. Neither here nor there. Again, just trying the ol' reductio ad absurdium ploy to get people to accept or even talk about the concept that it's OK for movies, plays, or any medium for that matter to not reflect ALL of the horrors in life. As for the original tone...understand, I'm new to this posting gig. The first couple of posts seem to dismiss the point and talk about eating kids (understand the connection, but not what I was going for). Next posts seem to dismiss me as Crazy (we're cool now, Early...I get it). Sorta just got my hackles up...know what I mean? Interesting phenomenon, though. I've been glancing at these boards for awhile now. Always seemed very congenial. Is it just me or does the fanbase seem to be splintering into the Firefly and Serenity camps? If so, not cool. Basic point...I can handle high drama (like I said, I've seen the new Battlestar Galactica). I just don't know if I can be in for a series of movies that whiddles down the cast to a cool half dozen or so. I just feel like Yoko Ono has invaded the band...ya' know?

Quote:Originally posted by BoomerGoodheart:
HKC, I don't know what you meant exactly about the "Missourians" comment, but as a said "Missourian", I'm somewhat miffed.

Please explain your comment.

My apologies, BoomerGoodheart, I was refering to Missouri in its capacity as the Show-me State, implying that certain folks had to be shown a thing {a very particular thing which has been under discussion which I won't mention directly 'cause it would constitute a spoiler) before they could imagine it could happen. It was merely a whimsical association I made as I was writing. I meant no offence towards true Missourians.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

There aren't many people who claim to have the "ear of Joss" or even the "Joss knows best" philosophy". But Thanatus, you strike me as an educated person or someone who has a very good dictionary or just maybe someone with a very smart friend. Seriously, I think you knew that saying what you did at the top would produce so called "shock value". Indeed that may be why you did it. Firefly has a very strong fan base, very dedicated, I need not list the evidence as it is...evident. I cannot believe that someone such as yourself would not expect a reaction from people after you come and post (what appears to be, irregardless of your original intent) a very offensive (and as you said, vulgar) stance on the movie. Also your description of how everyone would die, especially the detail of Zoe's suicide, probably alienated people and they took you at first glance to be a "crazy person”. As for myself…. Forget genres of science fiction vs reality. Serenity is a movie. Movies are made to entertain (and in a shallower sense, make the people involved richer then they already are). Were you entertained? If so, that's good. You got your money's worth. If not, perhaps Joss Whedon's style is not to your liking. Doesn't matter if it wasn't the best choice, or even if he was stoned and drunk the night he wrote that part of the script. He did what he did and it’s in the past. Also as to your nightmarish future? If Joss ever does something radical or something that is not to the liking of the fans, you’ll know. The drop-off of movie tickets, the slowing of DVD sales. It’s true that what he did in this movie may not have been to your liking or that of others. But the majority continues to support his decision. You are entitled to your opinion. Or is it just that all the true critics, the educated choose your path and we, the ignorant masses just don’t realize how “in the wrong” we are? After all, we “pseudo-religious zealots” don’t tend to think logically. In fact that’s the whole point of being a dedicated zealot, logic flies out the window. But if it wasn’t for the zealot’s belief, indeed the same devout unflinching faith that Joss would not let us down, much like The Operative who believed killing River was the right thing to do or Mal in his belief that the Universe needed to know the truth, there would be no movie. And then there would be nothing for you to criticize and examine. Nothing for you to take a point on. Nothing that would give you this much attention and stimulate such intellectual debate as to satisfy your needs. Which I hope we’ve done. Forgive me if I totally misunderstood anything you said. Maybe you should cut back on the Latin and use smaller words.

Quote:Originally posted by DrRob:
I always thought (on the TV show) it was STUPID that no one else (even Mal) knew how to fly Serenity. Apparently that's been done away with now that River magically knows how to fly.

Mal flew Serenity in the pilot episode of the show. Mal, Inara and Zoe all flew the shuttles, so I imagine they could take Serenity's helm under most circumstances. But if you have a really good pilot, you use him. :)

As for River, she probably always knew how. You don't train an assassin who can't fly away (and she knew the make and model of the ship in "The Train Job" so she definitely knows ships). But being crazy means no one wants you at the helm.

Quote:Originally posted by DrRob:And hey WHICH crafty crew member downloaded the security video feed for Mr. Universe to see huh?

None of them. They probably told him "hey, can you get us the security feed from Beaumont" and then he did it. Mr. Universe's comment "you always bring me the best violence" doesn't necessarily mean they brought the video -- just that they brought it to his attention.

I'm not sure why Joss did what he did. Maybe it was a cheap trick to put the audience on the edge of their seats for the finale, although I'd expect better treatment of a character from Joss. Over the years, I've come to respect Joss as a sollid craftsman -- someone who understands the medium in which he works and uses it effectively.

When i was younger, I used to read Harlan Ellison's short stories. For all of their artistry, I often found myself angry at him as an author. Why? Because he would create characters, throw them into the deep end of the pool (metaphorically speaking) -- and then happily record their subsequent drowning.

As a writer myself, I have an unholy respect for my characters -- a love that some authors might find ludicrous. I don't believe they exist solely to advance the plot, anymore than human beings exist just to move along the action in everyday life. People are more than what they do, Satre notwithstanding. I throw challenges at my people, and they respond as best they can. It is their reaction to the challenges that moves the plot. As a result of overcoming the challenges, they learn and grow, and then I throw harder challenges at them so they can learn and grow more.

SPOILER FOLLOWS:

Select to view spoiler:

But if you kill a character, it should be for something more than just for effect.

I didn't want Wash dead, ever. I certainly didn't want him killed to create a mood, or raise the level of dramatic tension.

Part of Joss's skill is his ability to create characters that transcend their existence as characters, and become people you feel you know. He facilitates an extension of the viewer's suspension of disbelief to the point where you'd love to sit down in Serenity's kitchen and spend time chowing down with this crew.

Wash was family, his fictitious status notwithstanding. To have him killed so precipitously, torn away without warning -- well, it's like watching an old friend step off the curb into the path of an oncoming semi. If Joss used him as a tool for establishing dramatic tension, it's even worse. Instead, it's like watching someone you trust SHOVE your old friend in front of the semi just to make you worry that someone else you love might be next.

Yes, Wash belonged to Joss. But he belonged to all of us too, because we gave him life by believing in him and the whole crew.

This being said, he's gone. Any attempt for Joss to bring him back to life would be no better than Spock's return from death in the Trek movie franchise. I can think of a neat way to bring him back that would be funny and touching and right for Wash -- as a ghost only River (and the audience) could see and hear, delivering ongoing commentary about the action without being able to take part. Even so, the empty seat at Serenity's table would stay empty. And his wry counterpoint to the "wacky fun" would go unheard, and unanswered, by the crew.

I guess the bottom line for me is this. Joss can do what he wants with his characters. But Wash was ours as much as he was Joss's, because we gave him life and believed in him. And even though Wash wasn't real. I will mourn his loss. The franchise isn't dead, and it promises to take some interesting twists and turns in the future (if there is one).

But the dinosaurs are silent, the Hawaiian shirts are packed away, and Zoe sleeps alone. Requiescat in pace, old friend. You will be missed.

Quote:Originally posted by BoomerGoodheart:
HKC, I don't know what you meant exactly about the "Missourians" comment, but as a said "Missourian", I'm somewhat miffed.

Please explain your comment.

BoomerGoodheart
"I love my Captain."

A reference to the whole "Show Me" mindset that your people are renown for?

heh, is it that or is it that most "Missourians" refer to themselves as being in the "State of Misery"... lol, know enough "Missourians" to figure that most would have left if given the choice. Only knew a few coworkers who relocated there because they thought it was better weather from where they were originally from - but they were from Ottawa....

AINTWEJUST,
Thank you. That was very well spoken, and exactly what I was looking for. QUASARWINDS, you are right. Of course the openning would have some shock value. (If it worked for Johnathan Swift, I thought I'd give it a try...apparently not as succesful as Johnny, though) I had hoped that it would cause some lively debate rather than have people say "Wow this psycho really wants Joss to have Zoe commit suicide!?" Let me be clear (again)...I am certainly not advocating a continuation and broadenning of that which I think was the biggest failing of the movie. But in the end, I'm not here to tell Joss how to do his job. I can't, I'm not a writer. And as for dumbing down my speech and cutting all use of Latin (the whole one phrase I used)...no thanks. I appreciate the advice, but I put faith in AINTWEJUST, HKCAVALIER, and the like. But you're right QUASARWINDS...I'll contact the admin. to see if they can/will delete this thread, as it is having the opposite effect that I had hoped...I've said my piece (even if it did seriously tax the binding on my really good dictionary, and the patience of my really smart friends)

I don't see anything wrong with asking anyone, any human being to do a bit of self-reflection and self-analysis. I think you've posited rather succintly and laid out your proposal calmly and intelligently. I just don't think this is the right forum or the right time and place for this kind of discussion. Most people here are entrenched in a subculture. By definition (and I'm sure you've seen from your personal observations) that people have a self-identity that they cling to (rather desperately at times). Most people aren't comfortable or even capable of doing any type of self examinations - in fact, that's why the entire industry of psychiatry is so successful - most people need someone's help to bounce themselves off from; but only if they are willing, comfortable enough, and knows how to.

Does it take a certain diplomatic skills to be able to dance around and approach the topic at hand? I doubt if even Bill Clinton can do it and not get tomatoes thrown at him. My point is, you've got folks who's very identity are dependent on "whatever it is that JW makes up"; and you go and ask them to question that. Most people would not only be uncomfortable, but likely unwilling to do so. You are asking them to tear down their own god and move to a new position which puts them in with the commoners - the folks who don't believe in their god. That's not possible.

I think I've always hoped that people would be able to recognize their own inability to self-reflect. But I lose faith each time people, people that I know are smart, reduce themselves to the same idiotic levels by arguing that the arguments you use are too smarty-pants'ed and too edumecated...

And people who argue that there isn't a need for discussions or meta-discussions just because things are the way they are irregardless - take it or leave it, doubly so. They really and truly need to learn to be able to take a good long hard look inward and see what they are, what motivates them, and why they do that is what they do.

Truly, Mr. Smarty-Pants, tell us like you think it is, ignore the people who can't present their arguments but rather just continue to question your motive, people who are motivated to tear you down so their own beliefs can stand "unscathed".
People who, thru their own continued ignorance or lack the capacity, to fully appreciate the need for self-reflection.

Whatever it is, continue the meta-discussion. Take heart, it is possible to hae a meta-discussion just like this without the "fanboy" attitude "all in your face". You shouldn't have to continually apologize for bring this up.

BTW, that other thread where HKC posted his thoughts is rather long for some folks with limited patience and time to hunt thru, you might want to use the actual pinpoint URL into it...

looks like you got half way there with your approach to reductio ad absurdum. Dietcoke did find it absurd... Now you just have to get thru to him how absurd the entire idea is - include his own behavior...

Is it Art or is it Censorship?

or maybe it's both. Have your Art and Censorship too?

Quote:Originally posted by dietcoke:
I truely find this thread absurd. You didn't like the movie. Fine. Art is personal, it speaks to you or it doesn't.

But I personally find your post vulgar and hope that Hanken will have the curteousy to remove it.

Quote:Originally posted by Thanatus:
Why not have characters faced with real challenges and difficulties that they have to deal with and grow through?

Do you find it difficult to understand that is what we will see if there are any sequels? Zoe is going to have to learn to live without Wash, and she may have a problem forgiving Mal. If that is not what you mean by a challenge I'm not sure what type you might prefer to see.

I don't understand why people get so offended when someone suggests that they "trust in Joss". I've never personally said it, but my understanding of what they are trying to communicate is that they enjoy his work, and that even if at times they thought they might not be so sure about it, they stuck with it and came to enjoy it even more. That doesn't mean they're brainless or "drinking the Kool-Aid", just that they've had past experience and have found that sticking with Joss's stories has paid off for them.

As for me, I don't necessarily want what happens in Joss's stories to happen, but when I try to write stories where what I want to happen happens, they pretty much suck. So, I choose to follow his vision, to try to understand what he's doing, why he's doing it, and how and why it affects me. If I can't stomach how it affects me, or if I just don't want to be affected that way, or worse, if I find it just doesn't affect me at all, then I move on to something else. I don't feel any need to suggest it should be different, because, frankly, choose-your-own-adventure books suck worse than my own attempts at fiction.

So, when I sign on with Joss's works, I know that I'm not in control of where it goes, but I also know that I can get off. Sometimes, just knowing that I can get off, makes me comfortable enough to stay on through a bumpy (or even disappointing) ride, because ultimately, it's not that big of a risk when considering the potential reward.

Rather than fight what happens in Serenity, I want to understand it, to get the most out of it that I can. I may not have expected it to go down the way it did, but that doesn't mean that it had no merit and cannot be appreciated. The more time that passes, and the more times I see the movie, the more I get out of it. Not because I'm brainwashing myself, but because I can learn from stretching myself - from leaving my comfort zone.

I used to not be able to drink wine without gagging. But, over time, I was able to develop a fine appreciation of wine - now I greatly enjoy it, and it enhances my life (or at least, nice meals). I haven't sold out to Big Wine. I've grown, and I'm better off for it.

Well, that's one view and your view; certainly an apt analogy. So now that you've tried the Bordeaux, what if you are asked to try the Beaujoulais? If JW's word is not Gospel and it's ok to examine the ideas, styles, concepts, plotlines, and the rest of the innerworkings of the art, then it should ok and worthwhile to examine at least both sides of the coin. On top of what worked, what was grand, and what really clicked, we should be able to get together and truly discuss what did not work, what wasn't so hot, and what didn't do it for us.

If we are all exactly alike, all drones of each other (borgs if you would), then I can understand that there isn't a need for expressing outselves and making discussion; and I think you would agree that we absolutely are not exactly alike, not by a far shot. I think it's appropriate to not close off *any* ideas. I think we should bring out both sides of the discussion. I think we should be able to listen to our contemporaries bring about their ideas intellectually and not spew vectives at them as if they never belonged here.

Attitudes like that, unfortunately, only serves to increase the perception of fandom, alienate potential allies, scare people off, and drive ticket sales down.

Quote:Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Well, that's one view and your view; certainly an apt analogy. So now that you've tried the Bordeaux, what if you are asked to try the Beaujoulais? If JW's word is not Gospel and it's ok to examine the ideas, styles, concepts, plotlines, and the rest of the innerworkings of the art, then it should ok and worthwhile to examine at least both sides of the coin. On top of what worked, what was grand, and what really clicked, we should be able to get together and truly discuss what did not work, what wasn't so hot, and what didn't do it for us.

If we are all exactly alike, all drones of each other (borgs if you would), then I can understand that there isn't a need for expressing outselves and making discussion; and I think you would agree that we absolutely are not exactly alike, not by a far shot. I think it's appropriate to not close off *any* ideas. I think we should bring out both sides of the discussion. I think we should be able to listen to our contemporaries bring about their ideas intellectually and not spew vectives at them as if they never belonged here.

Attitudes like that, unfortunately, only serves to increase the perception of fandom, alienate potential allies, scare people off, and drive ticket sales down.

I don't see us disagreeing at all, here. I was just trying to illustrate how what's often touted as an extreme i.e."trust in Joss", may not really be all that extreme. And though I didn't say it, that absolutely goes both ways, so thank you for bringing it up. It's really just the marginalization that's been getting to me - the spewing of vectives and such - which is indeed exactly what shuts down the discourse.

Ain't nothin' wrong atall for being a Serenity hugger *and* talking about what didn't work for you in the movie. How it can improve, etc... I say "Blind faith works - once you've had your eyes jabbed out..."

Why is it, though, that so many who didn't like Serenity jump to the conclusion that those who did are mindless, Whedon-fellating zombies, incapable of forming their own opinion on what The Joss presents to them?

Cuz, well, I think that's probably the case for some, but I imagine them to be the crazy fringe few.

Cheers.

无 党派 人士

HK...That's kinda what I'm getting at here. As someone who was diasappointed with the movie, I can tell you that it's a very lonely place to be. It just seems like so many of the Serenity huggers think people are out of their minds for not liking it, and those tend to be the vocal minority. Again, I liked the movie - on its own merits. It's more a feeling of disappointed that beset me more than repulsion. I am hearing reviewers referencing the rabid Browncoat fan base, and have even said that (we) are turning other genre fans away from the franchise. You know it's funny, Book was probably my favorite character, but I can accept his death. It just seems like the story and the franchise would have been so much better served by changed Wash (maybe paraplegic or something...I don't know), not a dead Wash. Does that sense of unrealised potential make any sense?

Nope, no disagreement here at all... [Shakes hands and looks around, eyeing the corner of the house] "You know, this isn't too bad, but maybe that support there don't look too right, could use some straightening..."

Quote:Originally posted by nosadseven:

Quote:Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Well, that's one view and your view; certainly an apt analogy. So now that you've tried the Bordeaux, what if you are asked to try the Beaujoulais? If JW's word is not Gospel and it's ok to examine the ideas, styles, concepts, plotlines, and the rest of the innerworkings of the art, then it should ok and worthwhile to examine at least both sides of the coin. On top of what worked, what was grand, and what really clicked, we should be able to get together and truly discuss what did not work, what wasn't so hot, and what didn't do it for us.

If we are all exactly alike, all drones of each other (borgs if you would), then I can understand that there isn't a need for expressing outselves and making discussion; and I think you would agree that we absolutely are not exactly alike, not by a far shot. I think it's appropriate to not close off *any* ideas. I think we should bring out both sides of the discussion. I think we should be able to listen to our contemporaries bring about their ideas intellectually and not spew vectives at them as if they never belonged here.

Attitudes like that, unfortunately, only serves to increase the perception of fandom, alienate potential allies, scare people off, and drive ticket sales down.

I don't see us disagreeing at all, here. I was just trying to illustrate how what's often touted as an extreme i.e."trust in Joss", may not really be all that extreme. And though I didn't say it, that absolutely goes both ways, so thank you for bringing it up. It's really just the marginalization that's been getting to me - the spewing of vectives and such - which is indeed exactly what shuts down the discourse.

ya know...I've been going over Serenity again and again in my head. I may go see it again, even though it rides against my better judgement. But after considering the BDM and watching some of my favorite eps of Firefly over the past couple of days I've figured out the problem here. Hope. Firefly was all about hope and freedom (you can't take the sky from me). A small cadre against the great big baddies (unarmed broke-dick cargo ship against the Man). On the Alliance...I got a much more ominous feeling about the Alliance when I saw the Dortmunder roll up on Serenity in Bushwhacked than at any point in Serenity. With the sole exception of the Operative, the Alliance seemed more like the Government of Canada...big and unweildy, but essentially harmless. (apologies to all of my Canuck mates in the Great White North ) Serenity didn't convey that feel of hope and freedom to me or any of my mates. It felt like a dark episode of Andromeda (only seen two of 'em so it may not be an apt comparisson). The feel was less "you can't take the sky from me..." and more "...but you can take everything else from me". Here is where I duck for cover...I would almost hope that Joss would make a sequel which opens with River waking up from a dream sequence ala Wizard of Oz and we can all just breathe a sigh of relief that Serenity never really happened (aunt Zoe you were in my dream, and uncle Wash too!) To tell you the truth, that's about the only thing people wouldn't see coming! Before people start trying to find out where I live and work...the dream sequence was a bit of a sartorial comment...K? Thoughts?

Actually when Wash died, I thought the whole thing might be a vision of River's, (a la Trance Gemini for Andromeda fans). However (and this is just my opinion), if the whole thing was just a dream of River's it would seem, well cheap. You can do things on TV shows that you cannnot do in good movies, absurd things like time travel and other stuff like that. Movies (usually) have a greater format to convey emotions and feelings then the sometimes limited frame of a television episode. In my mind, the dream idea would be like if aliens were put into the movie. Overused and overrated. Then again I watch a lot of sci-fi so maybe the dream idea is just old to me. Also Serenity? The Big Damn Movie? The one every Browncoat has seen at least twice? The one that every Browncoat is trying to get people to see before this weekend at the risk of alienating friends and family? They might feel a bit gypped if the whole movie wasn't real. (They live in a spaceship. You know what I mean). So many people are upset about the deaths of Book and Wash but many good things happened as well.

Select to view spoiler:

-Inara came back on the ship
-Mal found something to believe in
-River is no longer totally skitso
-KAYLEE AND SIMON FINALLY FELL IN LOVE. (About damn time).

Not to say that these things outweigh the deaths of Wash and Book, (Can't put a price on life) but how much would it suck if that was all changed? Then its back to the same old angst ridden Mal, the removed Inara, the pyschotic River and the same goddamn awkwardness between Kaylee and Simon due to their social structures and upbringings. (Which happens to be the most original idea for romance I've ever heard). *cough* BULLSHIT *cough. And ok fine, maybe we liked angst-ridden Mal and the awkwardness between Kaylee and Simon and River's "mood swings". Actually I loved River's mood swings. However change has happened and I'm willing to see what happens now and how the characters adjust within their new lives. Unless of course it turns into the future of Thanatus. Then that's just not cool.

On a different subject all of this may be moot. This weekend will determine the fate of Serenity 2 and/or Firefly Season 2. Whatever the case, Serenity's ticket earnings are nowhere near where they need to be, (and don't speak to me about DVD sales, they won't come in time). So if we want the adventures of a certain crew to continue, it's time to kick it up a notch. Go see the movie again. Bring family, friends, that random guy across the street and draw your line in the sand. We've done the impossible and that makes us mighty. It does not make us invincible. We are not so pretty that God (or Hollywood) won't let us die. So you hold this position as long as you can. We are on the right side. Let's not make it be the losing one.

Actually...not poorly stated QUASAR. Although "the future of Thanatus"? Not so much. I mean who could doubt the artistic genious behind the whole "who shot JR" dream sequence? [drippiing with sarcasm] A dream sequence is definitely not a viable solution...but I'm just hoping Joss can somehow "fix" this whole thing, if given the chance. I'm hearing it from people new to Firefly/Serenity. My father, among others whom I convinced to invest in this thing and are new to the series, have said things to me like "too bad the movie didn't better resemble those DVDs you gave me" and "that was the same guy that did Firefly?" They're not going to go see Serenity again, and that's not my fault people. I really do believe in Mr. Whedon's abilities...I just thinnk he blew it on this one, and let down many of the fans, potential fans, not to mention these fine actors who did the best they could with what they had. As far as going to see the movie again and again (and again)...I'm not above buying tickets and just letting them go unused. Just not sure I want to subject myself to a movie that, in my opinion, just wasn't that entertaining. I'm not even talking about the whole point of controversy vis-a-vis Wash. I'm talking about the whole feel and execution of the thing. I'm just saying if I didn't enjoy the movie why risk burning the thing into my memory and forever tainting future viewings of Firefly episodes on DVD? I'll fund the movie as best I can. But seriously, what's more the mark of a true (and rational) fan...repeatedly watching a movie I don't like in the hopes that I can make myself like it...or put a little faith in Mr. Whedon's ability to (in my opinion) salvage this thing for Serenity 2? I'm just saying that I wish he would make it based on Firefly rather than basing it on this Serenity Bizarro World. I mean really...all that's missing is Mal with a Fu-Manchu style goatee and an over-sexed Inara in a mini-skirt (reference to ST TOS "Mirror, Mirror,"). Finally as far as the resolution of the Mal/Inara and Simon/Kaylee angst goes...does the word "Moonlighting" mean anything to anyone? Don't quite know why, but main character getting past their angst and hooking up is more of a death sentence than suffering the kinetic trauma of a Reaver harpoon. Open to contrary opinions, though...

Quote:Originally posted by Thanatus:
I'm hearing it from people new to Firefly/Serenity. My father, among others whom I convinced to invest in this thing and are new to the series, have said things to me like "too bad the movie didn't better resemble those DVDs you gave me" and "that was the same guy that did Firefly?"

Funny you should say that, Thanatus. I'm finding that Serenity is actually playing better for people who never saw the series. In essence, Joss' gamble succeeded where he wanted it to. Several reviews I've read lauded him for the danger he created. Most folks who don't know the show from Adam think it was a pretty good movie. Now, the question becomes, should Joss have made a movie just for the fans and cut loose the rest of the world?

We'll know in a week or two.

As far as Moonlighting is concerned... anybody remember Ross and Rachel in Friends? Turns out a show can have tension 'resolved' and still continue.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

My point exactly AnthonyT...my father and others were new to the storyline, but had seen a few episodes of Firefly that I loaned them. Their impression of the movie was not entirely negative. It was a disappointed and an example of an opportunity wasted. Look I'm not gonna say that you're out of your mind if you liked this film...just not gonna do it. But you want to say this is great because reviewers said so? Come on...you can find some reviewers that liked Ishtar. Serenity is no Ishtar, but it should stand on its own merits and not be reliant upon the opinions of reviewers. A moment of intellectual honesty here Anthony...if Serenity were panned by reviewers and universally loathed, how many posts on this board would have said "Bah! Reviewers don't get it...they don't understand...they don't matter". Needs no answer, just think on it. Regarding Friends...you may be right. As an ensemble cast, the Friends/Firefly parallel may be more apt than the Moonlighting/Firefly parallel. Anyway you still need some tension there IMHO...you can't resolve it all or it becomes Love Boat: The Next Generation. :)

That is the responsibility of Space Rebels, the movie. That is what people watching Space Rebels need to see.

It's only some of the people who came to watch Firefly, the movie who are bothered by this. People who went to the theaters to see Space Rebels think that everything that happened was logical, good, and exciting.

The gamble is this: Firefly, the movie is only good for people who liked Firefly. Space Rebels is good for everyone else.

Putting aside all interviews, deep down I feel that Joss made Space Rebels, the movie, with a Firefly flavor.

I think he did it because he thought it was the best way to make a good movie.

We will know very soon if it was a good decision or a bad decision.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

Quote:Originally posted by zark1976:
Also, if we're speaking of reality vs. fictionalized drama, can you explain whiy a sword to the gut still allows a man to continue fighting? I'm sorry, I was more shocked that after all of the injuries taken at the end of the movie, that any of them were able to do anything.

You might be surprised what you can do in a life or death situation when you are hopped up on adrenaline & you have the willpower & fortitude that Mal & the crew demonstrated. I've seen people do some amazing things when push comes to shove.

__________________________________________

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

Anthony you are 100% correct. We will see soon enough, and I hope I am wrong. As someone else on this board said, and as my relatives and compadres that I *coerced* into seeing the BDM have said...this movie feels like more of an ending than a beginning. I do fundamentally disagree with your statement that "That (main character death) is what people watching Space Rebels need to see" however. I don't think we need to see anything except a good movie with a good story and some good characters. I am coming at this from a market and fan perspective. If your goal is to make three movies, and you kill off two characters per movie because people need to see that, by the end you have a very dark and depressing trilogy with Mal, River, and ? to go forward with. Maybe we only "need" to see the death of main characters in the first movie. Why there and nowhere else? If there is a second Serenity, I and many others will go see it, but the thought foremost on my mind will not be "you can't take the sky from me..." as it was for Serenity, but rather "who dies next, how, and in what order". Great. I don't know. I do know that if you need to witness the poorly executed death of major (and seemingly integral) characters to be a fan of this franchise, then I just need to be told where to send in my Firefly Fan ID Card. I'll tell you...Nobody that I have ever given the DVD set to has disliked Firefly. The most negative response I've gotten is "cowboys in space? Idon't get it..." And that is fine. But here's where we are going to have to agree to disagree I guess...Space Rebels is only good for people who don't have the patience or imagination for Firefly. Firefly, the movie is good for everyone else.

All FIREFLY graphics and photos on this page are copyright 2002-2012 Mutant Enemy, Inc., Universal Pictures, and 20th Century Fox.
All other graphics and texts are copyright of the contributors to this website.
This website IS NOT affiliated with the Official Firefly Site, Mutant Enemy, Inc., or 20th Century Fox.